There are those inside and out of the medical field who obviously do not believe that abortion is murder. Pretty simple. However, the death penalty is pretty simply the taking of another life.

 

Nope. If I commit murder, I know my consequences is the taking of my life. I HAVE CHOSEN TO SACRIFICE MY OWN LIFE.

Should Rosa Parks have simply followed the law? Should those who had sit ins in Woolsworth, etc. have simply followed the law of the land? Should Harriet Tubman have simply followed the law of the land, Thurgood Marshall.

 

Slavery and Jim Crow and others did not go away because people all of a sudden became enlightened, they went away because good people stood up and said these laws are unjust (in Rosa Parks case she 'sat down') and the body politic was forced to see how immoral the laws were. And were it not for the TV cameras showing the water hoses being turned on the African Americans in Mississippi or Alabama the general public may never have realized how unjust and immoral the laws were.

 

You and I have been over this, If you want to change the law do something about it. The people you list above did something about bad laws. When I disagree with a law I will try and change it.

 

Just like I will work to keep the Death Penalty.:thumb:

Although I believe that scripture is clear on the penalty for taking another persons life, I don't think this country can use this as a justification for doing so. The law given was for the Israelites who were a Godly people. This country is far from Godly.

We can't kill 50 million babies and legalize the union of same sex couples then turn around and use the bible to justify carrying out the death penalty.

 

I also believe those who are rejoicing in the execution can not use the bible to support their feeling on the death penalty. I truly mourn for this man. But I do believe his death is right.

 

And for the record, I am not pro life or pro choice, I am anti abortion.

Although I believe that scripture is clear on the penalty for taking another persons life, I don't think this country can use this as a justification for doing so. The law given was for the Israelites who were a Godly people. This country is far from Godly.

We can't kill 50 million babies and legalize the union of same sex couples then turn around and use the bible to justify carrying out the death penalty.

 

I also believe those who are rejoicing in the execution can not use the bible to support their feeling on the death penalty. I truly mourn for this man. But I do believe his death is right.

 

And for the record, I am not pro life or pro choice, I am anti abortion.

 

I am not sure that we are too far removed. The law was given and immediately after it the ground divided and swallowed up several thousand of those Godly people for worshipping the Golden Calf. It was not too long later after that the people of Israel and the laws that Israel was following as a country were so wrong in God's eyes that he allowed them to be put into slavery.

I think it is interesting that he did not on his own or the 2 thieves that was with him. Even one thief he gave eternal salvation to but did not let him out of his worldly death sentence.

 

I think Jesus sees that this time on Earth is just a pittance to his real concern of our possible eternal death penalty of Hell.

 

You still didn't answer my question.

Does anyone else other than acemona feel this way ? Our state executed a man and therefore we have all sinned ?

 

I'm sorry, I find that absurd and could not imagine living life that way.

 

What would this sin be in Gods eye ? Murder for everyone who lives in the state of Kentucky during the execution ? That's harsh...

You still didn't answer my question.

 

What was your question?

What was your question?

 

So, just to clarify...would you say that the fact that Jesus was given a death penalty and didn't speak out against it justifies the practice of executing people?

 

That was my question.

 

Jesus came to earth to die for our salvation. I think the example of Him not speaking out against it was more about Him knowing his purpose and accepting it. I don't think we can take it as a vote of confidence for the people responsible for his crucifixion.

 

We are called to live under authority as much as is possible for us...but, that doesn't mean something we live under is the correct position.

 

Paul submitted to the Roman authority and was imprisoned and ultimately executed for preaching the Gospel of Christ. Would you say the fact that he didn't speak out against it should be interpreted as a thumbs up for the death penalty? And, more specifically, the death penalty for preaching Christ?

Serious question, NOT meant to be a judgement, but will the priest that told those that voted for Obama (based on his stance on abortion) that they should not receive communion tell all Kentucky residents (whose state actually executed someone, a stance that the Catholic Church is against) that they should not received communion?

 

Kentucky allows abortions as well, so by this logic all Catholics in Kentucky should not receive communion for that as well.

 

I see your point, but the difference is voting for someone who has already stated his support for and willingness to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law in Obama which will cause there to be more abortions when the death penalty was not an issue in this election.

 

For the record, while I believe abortion is a shameful scar on our country, I am not sure I agree with this priest on this issue. And this was his stance, not necessarily a stance of the Catholic church.

Kentucky allows abortions as well, so by this logic all Catholics in Kentucky should not receive communion for that as well.

 

I see your point, but the difference is voting for someone who has already stated his support for and willingness to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law in Obama which will cause there to be more abortions when the death penalty was not an issue in this election.

 

For the record, while I believe abortion is a shameful scar on our country, I am not sure I agree with this priest on this issue. And this was his stance, not necessarily a stance of the Catholic church.

 

Don't both go against the teachings of the church? So the difference on whether communion should be offered is if one "sin" is an election issue or not?

Don't both go against the teachings of the church? So the difference on whether communion should be offered is if one "sin" is an election issue or not?

 

Once again, the priest was wrong on this issue. Voters can receive the Holy Eucharist in spite of support for an intrinsic evil (whether it is abortion or purely retributive death penalty).

 

The priest should have instructed his congregation to review the moral issues and carefully make a voting decision, while noting the especially large proportion of evil that abortion yields.